The concept of ‘Floating DOGE Dividends’ was inspired by a recent dream of James Fishback. The idea involves distributing dividend checks to American taxpayers using the funds saved by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency as it streamlines federal government operations. The idea gained traction when Fishback shared it on social media, prompting Musk to support the idea and promise to discuss it with President Trump. Trump, in turn, highlighted the proposal during the FII Priority Summit in Miami Beach, mentioning plans to allocate a portion of the savings to American citizens and debt reduction.
However, there are concerns that low-income Americans may not benefit from the proposal as envisioned by Fishback. As the CEO of Azoria, an investment firm, Fishback collaborated with his team to develop a proposal for distributing checks to millions of American households based on the savings generated by the DOGE initiative. The proposal was quickly shared with key government officials, including President Trump, demonstrating the swift impact of Musk’s influence on policy discussions.
The idea of a “DOGE dividend” mirrors previous initiatives, such as the pandemic-era direct payments with the president’s name attached. Fishback emphasizes the importance of including the term DOGE on the checks to acknowledge the role of the savings. The proposal assumes significant government savings of $2 trillion, with 20% allocated for distribution to taxpaying households, amounting to $5,000 per household. However, the rebates would be limited to net-income taxpayers, excluding lower-income individuals who do not pay federal income tax.
Fishback argues that these dividend checks, funded by existing appropriations, would not contribute to inflation, unlike deficit-financed stimulus checks. By targeting tax-paying households, the proposal aims to provide direct financial support to those who contribute to the tax system.
Individuals who are more inclined to save rather than spend a transfer payment, such as the DOGE Dividend, typically have a lower portion of their income devoted to consumption. Paying off debt, setting aside funds for emergencies, and investing in education or retirement do not contribute to inflation. In fact, reducing debt can have a deflationary effect. Economist Fishback mentioned in an interview that targeting the dividend to households above a certain income threshold can alleviate concerns about potential inflationary pressures, contrasting it with the indiscriminate distribution of pandemic-era relief checks. Low-income households received significant transfer payments, representing a substantial portion of their annual income. The DOGE dividend is directed towards households that are net-contributors of federal income tax, which suggests a higher inclination to save rather than spend the payment.
There is no consensus, even among Republicans, regarding distributing checks from the DOGE savings, the exact amount of which remains undisclosed. While the group claims to have saved $55 billion, some claims seem unsubstantiated. For example, DOGE’s assertion of an $8 billion saving from a canceled contract was found to be inaccurate, as the contract was valued at just $8 million. Despite initially aiming for $2 trillion in savings, Musk has tempered expectations and emphasized the need to verify actual savings before committing to distributing dividends.
Economist Zandi expressed skepticism about providing dividend checks without confirming tangible savings, stating the importance of first addressing deficit reduction. Discussing the proposal at a conference, House Speaker Johnson highlighted the importance of fiscal responsibility and reducing the federal debt. Musk indicated that he discussed the proposal with Trump, who reportedly supports it. However, the White House declined to comment on the matter.
Fishback engaged in discussions in Washington regarding the proposal, expressing optimism about the conversations with stakeholders.
A video depicting a brief conversation between Fishback and Musk was shown on Thursday. “Now, for those who wish to critique this plan and argue that DOGE could never generate $2 trillion in overall savings, we may disagree, but let’s hypothetically concede to their point,” Fishback stated. “Let’s say it’s only $1 trillion. In that case, the amount would decrease from $5,000 to $2,500. Or let’s assume it’s just $500 billion… then the check would be $1,250. That’s a significant sum.” “I must be candid here. It’s not solely about the monetary value,” he continued. “It’s about the significance of the government reallocating funds as restitution to compensate diligent Americans, whether residing in East Baltimore or East Palestine, for the misuse and exploitation of their hard-earned tax contributions.” However, as Zandi pointed out, the reductions themselves are not without potential economic repercussions. “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” he remarked. “If people are laid off, it will negatively impact the economy. There’s a cost involved. We need to carefully assess the broader economic implications of all this, not just in the short term. What about the long-term effects? By making these cuts, you are essentially assuming, either implicitly or explicitly, that the jobs being eliminated and the tasks being reduced were not crucial, that there was no value in the work carried out by individuals at the FAA, USAID, FTC, and FDA.” “It’s quite a bold stance to suggest that these positions hold no importance and provide no benefit in the grand scheme of things, that the tasks they perform are not vital for the efficient operation of our economy and nation,” he emphasized. “I cannot claim to have all the answers, but I highly doubt that anyone else does either.”
